i sent this letter my sheriff

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Aries

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
5,538
Reaction score
8,098
Location
Sapulpa
I fully agree with our Right to Constitutional Carry for the vast majority of gun owners, but I have to agree with 'cdschoonie' only in the sense that a very small percentage of people should not be allowed to carry weapons without having first gone through some type of hunter safety, firearm safety, or psylchological evaluation. Lets face it, not everyone is emotionally, psychologically, or physically capable of handling firearms safely.
The difficulty is figuring out who is emotionally, psychologically, or physically incapable of handling firearms safely. That's really a different topic from licensing. We seem to have migrated from "requiring training for everyone" to "weeding out the very small percentage of unfit".
 

Chuckie

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
4,969
Location
Midwest City, Oklahoma, 73110
The difficulty is figuring out who is emotionally, psychologically, or physically incapable of handling firearms safely. That's really a different topic from licensing. We seem to have migrated from "requiring training for everyone" to "weeding out the very small percentage of unfit".

And thus "shall not be infringed" becomes "just a little infringed" ...

I agree that some training is preferred, but I have a serious problem with the right to self-defense (acknowledged by the 2nd amendment) being subject to restrictions. Self-defense isn't a privilige (like driving), it's THE basic right of self-preservation to everyone in a free society.

As usual, just my 2¢ ... :drunk2:
-
I agree with you that everyone has the right to self-defense and self-protection but should, for example, a paranoid schizophrenic or a hardcore meth addict be allowed unfettered access to firearms and ammunition? How about someone that is 'legally' blind but can still see well enough to get around without assistance some of the time? Also what about the individual that, for whatever reason, has lost their ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, or the grown adult with the mental/emotional capacity of a 4 year old? The phrase ". . . shall not be infringed" can become a very slippery slope indeed 🤔

Personally, I consider driving on public roads to be a Right rather than a privilege, being that some of my taxes pays for the construction and maintenance of those public roads, though I do believe that for the public good I should have to demonstrate my ability to safely operate a vehicle and be issued proof of that ability (i.e. a license).
 

MacFromOK

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
13,759
Reaction score
14,757
Location
Southern Oklahoma
I agree with you that everyone has the right to self-defense and self-protection but should, for example, a paranoid schizophrenic or a hardcore meth addict be allowed unfettered access to firearms and ammunition? How about someone that is 'legally' blind but can still see well enough to get around without assistance some of the time? Also what about the individual that, for whatever reason, has lost their ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, or the grown adult with the mental/emotional capacity of a 4 year old? The phrase ". . . shall not be infringed" can become a very slippery slope indeed 🤔

Personally, I consider driving on public roads to be a Right rather than a privilege, being that some of my taxes pays for the construction and maintenance of those public roads, though I do believe that for the public good I should have to demonstrate my ability to safely operate a vehicle and be issued proof of that ability (i.e. a license).
If someone is a danger to themselves or others, they shouldn't be allowed to roam free without supervision.

If they can be turned loose on their own in a free society, their right to self-defense should not be infringed.

Criminals don't cut victims any slack because of a handicap. In fact, the handicapped are more likely to become a target/victim.

Again, just my 2¢ ... :drunk2:
 
Last edited:

Jestik

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
1,711
Reaction score
137
Location
Edmond, OK
I hear a lot of "I'm agreeing with you....but" that ain't really agreeing.

Also the guy that got shot should probably not gotten involved to begin with. Now if the gunman was coming at him, I get it, but if he went towards the danger and not away from it, then he put himself in the line of fire. Also, I don't know why in the world he would pick up the rifle that has been used to shoot the cop.

Also, I'm not sure what the OP expects the Sheriff to tell him besides "Best let law enforcement do their jobs and not to get involved."
 

akgriffin

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
329
Reaction score
175
Location
mcalester, oklahoma
I hear a lot of "I'm agreeing with you....but" that ain't really agreeing.

Also the guy that got shot should probably not gotten involved to begin with. Now if the gunman was coming at him, I get it, but if he went towards the danger and not away from it, then he put himself in the line of fire. Also, I don't know why in the world he would pick up the rifle that has been used to shoot the cop.

Also, I'm not sure what the OP expects the Sheriff to tell him besides "Best let law enforcement do their jobs and not to get involved."
the bad guy just killed a cop and the good guy smoked him but for some reason picked up the bad guys weapon, in my opinion to move it away from him, that is when the cop rolls up and smoked the good guy. If i hear my sheriff or my chief or any damn officer for that matter tell me its their job and not to get involved., i will walk away and never try to help anyone again.
 

crrcboatz

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
Messages
2,794
Reaction score
1,672
Location
Oologah
Typically a license means you show minimum proficiency to do X. Gun owners don’t have the equivalent of the bar, etc. I wouldn’t use an unlicensed lawyer, dr, pharmacist, electrician…..

At church, I think I’m more likely to be shot in the back by ccw holders than a gunman, in the case of an active shooter. The number of people that don’t practice, aside from running their mouth or keyboard, is rather shocking.

(I see both sides of this argument, but don’t favor government mandated/controlled licensing. If it was a 3rd party… I’d at least consider it.)
Love this! Spot on!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom